|
|
| |
| Wed, Oct. 8, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Should government rely on parents of teens to stimulate economy? Saturday, Apr 5, 2008 By Micki Bare Our accountant notified Hubby and me that we will receive a little something from Uncle Sam later this spring. It is always nice to receive a monetary gift from a relative, especially when that relative hasn't actually died yet. Then again, when the generous relative is still kicking, the check normally comes with expectations. Uncle Sam is no exception. The check we expect in May will be adorned with red, white and blue strings - most likely marionette-grade strings. As Americans, it is our duty to use the money to stimulate our ailing economy. Leave it to a male dominated government to think the way to stimulate something is to throw money at it. Personally, I've always been partial to brains and polite manners. But, I am proud to be an American and am ready to do my civic duty. When we get the money, use it to buy stuff - it seems like an easy enough task. But the economy is a delicate, intricate system. I know this because I took an economics class in college. I am excited about the extra cash on hand, but I'm worried that my financial decisions won't appropriately stimulate the economy. I have enough trouble trying to stimulate teenagers to get ready for school in the morning and stimulate grass seed to grow in front of my house. What if the economy isn't stimulated? Will Uncle Sam want the money back? Will he collect it in the form of higher taxes or by placing federal toll booths on interstate highways? Hubby and I are considering using the money to buy curtains. We have a curtain rod in the living room that lacks fabric. There was a time when we draped a window scarf over the rod. But when we repainted the room and added a chair rail the scarf no longer matched the d?cor. The plan would then be to complete our living room ensemble and stimulate the window treatment market at the same time. But would that be enough to help stimulate the economy? We could get away for a weekend. We could finally escape back to the bed and breakfast we loved at the coast. A little romantic getaway would stimulate the tourism industry. It sounds like a great idea. But, what if other couples followed our lead? What if couples everywhere get away for some alone time in records numbers? Such a romantic movement could lead to a population explosion. Everyone knows how much children cost. Babies would strain personal budgets, which in turn could stress the economy. The whole plan could backfire, sending us spiraling into another recession. Only this time, there would be more mouths to feed. I'm tempted to simply take the check straight to the bank. Saving the money isn't supposed to stimulate the economy. However, give me just a moment to illustrate my argument. Squirreling away the money in our savings account will give us a little something more to fall back on should we have an emergency. As long as we don't actually have a financial emergency, we will mentally feel "ahead of the game." Stay with me, because this is important. If we are ahead of the game when we are out grocery shopping, we might actually splurge for a name-brand toothpaste. If we are ahead of the game when one of the boys needs new sneakers, we might actually go to a shoe store instead of a discount super center to purchase the shoes. If we are ahead of the game when the car needs an oil change, we might throw caution to the wind and have new windshield wipers installed. I think you see my point. Saving money might actually make us feel more comfortable about spending a little more here and there. And spending a little more here and there should, if my number-crunching is accurate, stimulate the economy. Of course, should we actually encounter a financial emergency, we would then be forced to spend the money, which would stimulate the economy. It's a win-win plan. This close to April 15, I have noted that the little check we are expecting is only a fraction of what we paid in taxes for 2007. So really, the check will only boil down to a temporary, slight reduction in taxes. If the government really wanted to stimulate the economy, they would give us back ALL the taxes we paid in 2007. Or, they could suspend ALL taxes for 2008. Of course, this would mean that salaries for Congress would have to be suspended for a while. But then, from what I've been reading in the paper, most of the politicians don't really need more stimulation. ------- Micki Bare is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau and the Courier-Tribune in Asheboro, N.C., and author of the book, "Relative Expressions." She lives in Asheboro with her husband and three children. Her e-mail address is mickibare@inspiredscribe.com. |
